Key result
Minimally invasive sutureless AVR matches full sternotomy for hard endpoints with ~1.5 fewer hospital days.
Why the study?
Clinical and hemodynamic performance of Perceval sutureless valves in isolated AVR comparing minimally invasive versus full sternotomy approaches was not well characterized in real-world settings.
Does a minimally invasive approach improve outcomes compared to full sternotomy in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement with a sutureless valve?
Cohort (n=1,652)
Yes
Does a minimally invasive approach improve outcomes compared to full sternotomy in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement with a sutureless valve?
In patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement with a sutureless valve, a minimally invasive approach is noninferior to full sternotomy for hard clinical endpoints and significantly reduces ICU and hospital length of stay.
OBJECTIVE: Perceval sutureless valve (Corcym, Saluggia, Italy) has been in clinical use for more than 15 years. The aim of this study is to report clinical and hemodynamic performance from a real-world registry in patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a Perceval, comparing outcomes of minimally invasive (MICS) versus full sternotomy (FS) settings. METHODS: This prospective international registry enrolled 1,652 patients implanted with a sutureless aortic valve in 55 institutions from 2011 to 2021. Patients with isolated AVR were analyzed by MICS and FS approaches. Preoperative covariates were adjusted with propensity score matching 2:1, reaching a final cohort of 857 isolated AVR patients with 558 patients in MICS and 299 in FS groups. RESULTS: < 0.001), but intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay were significantly lower in the MICS cohort, resulting in about 0.5 days and 1.5 days less spent in the intensive care unit and hospital, respectively. The surgical approach did not show any effect on early or late survival, disabling stroke, leaks greater than 2, pacemaker rate, or hemodynamics. CONCLUSIONS: Our propensity-matched analysis demonstrates the noninferiority of MICS with regard to hard endpoints and better outcomes for secondary endpoints such as reduced length of intensive care and in-hospital stay.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Concistrè et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve disease requiring replacement (n=1,652). Minimally invasive surgery (MICS) vs. Full sternotomy (FS) was evaluated on Early or late survival, disabling stroke, leaks greater than 2, pacemaker rate, or hemodynamics. Minimally invasive surgery for sutureless aortic valve replacement was noninferior to full sternotomy for hard endpoints and reduced ICU and hospital stays by 0.5 and 1.5 days, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: